U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2017, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,449 posts, read 22,959,819 times
Reputation: 7246

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113 View Post
The more you simply offer up opinions without anything to back up the less legs you have to stand on. Unless you have something to back up your claims this discussion you want to rant about is pointless.
It's too early for any sort of study of the "me too" movement or the full impact of the sexual inquiistion of 2017. There won't be any sort of "backing' other than opinion for some time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2017, 04:05 PM
 
2,360 posts, read 1,028,642 times
Reputation: 2071
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
It's too early for any sort of study of the "me too" movement or the full impact of the sexual inquiistion of 2017. There won't be any sort of "backing' other than opinion for some time.
IOP.. the metoo is a joke that should been put out of its misery.. I be sure to wait 10 years down the road to complain about my boss touching me the wrong way.. but first i got to make sure they area famous enough to get PAID..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 06:07 PM
Status: "Happy Birthday to all October babies." (set 25 days ago)
 
Location: Los Angeles
852 posts, read 463,988 times
Reputation: 2078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89 View Post
I only remember Vietnam. I was there.
Thank you for your service first and foremost. I was just graduating from the 8th grade in 1967 and going into high school in the fall. Vietnam was a huge part of what I recall. Civil rights happened long before 1967 to the person who mentioned it... I grew up in a great suburb outside of Los Angeles - Torrance and my oldest sister lost MANY friends to the Vietnam war. She graduated from high school in 1966 so of course many young men were sent to Nam

Vietnam was in everyone's minds back in 67' Da Nang - etc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 08:37 PM
 
6,822 posts, read 4,412,863 times
Reputation: 11951
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman View Post
As far as investing goes it was actually pretty good. My dad invested in 2nd mortgages. He was getting 15-20% interest on it.

I am concerned that the low interest rates dissuade people from saving their money and instead are too heavily reliant on the stock market.

The personal savings rate was about 12% then now its less than 3%. I believe that makes us much more vulnerable to an economic downturn and having to rely on the government to survive.
I too am concerned about the attenuated savings-rate, but I'd not blame it on low interest rates. The real change is cultural, rather than economic.

The 1970s were a horrendous time for investment in conventional assets (stocks and bonds). Unconventional assets may have sporadically done well. I'm sure that that era had its analog to Bitcoin or whatever else is currently capturing the public's fascination. But the point is that buy-and-hold approach to paper-assets was a hapless and unsuccessful in 1966-1982, as it was during the Great Depression (if adjusted for inflation).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113 View Post
...You know as usual I believe all these complaints about who is at fault for why the country isn't as prosperous as it once was makes me wonder that it may really be no one's fault. It may just be the inevitability of change that happens to economies, societies and life itself.
Indeed. And it's also likely the case, that we were NEVER as prosperous as we think that we were. It's a confabulation - not an actual memory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
I like this chart, but it's important to read it correctly. Real GDP/capita has increased ~1.9%/yr since the mid 1800s. A consistent yearly % increase will take the form of an exponential rise (consistently steeper slope). Over long time periods you'd expect wages to keep pace with per capita GDP, and this was the case from 1860 to the mid 1970s. Prior to 1930 wages lagged a bit (~1.6%/yr rise), but the imbalance was corrected in the following 45 years when wages increased at a ~3%/yr rate. And then the bottom fell out. Since then the yearly increase has been 0.0%.
But another way to view that chart, is to notice that the past 40 years of "stagnation" are merely returning is to the trend-line of 1860-1930. That is, the hump from 1930 through 1970 was anomalous and unsustainable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 10:54 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,733,092 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
But another way to view that chart, is to notice that the past 40 years of "stagnation" are merely returning is to the trend-line of 1860-1930. That is, the hump from 1930 through 1970 was anomalous and unsustainable.
No. The trend"line" is exponential.

Like this:




If you go back to the wage chart, and start at 1860 ($5k), 1.9% annual growth rate would be:

$18k in 1930 (vs $12.5k actual). Wage growth over 66 years is 70% of economic growth.

$43k in 1975 (vs $37k actual). Wage growth over 115 years is 86% of economic growth.

$96k in 2010 (vs $37k actual). Wage growth over 150 years is 39% of economic growth.

The period since 1975 is the anomaly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 11:42 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,759 posts, read 1,211,909 times
Reputation: 5077
$5K was a ton of money in 1860. $10B was the entire GDP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2017, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,170 posts, read 4,733,092 times
Reputation: 4206
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
$5K was a ton of money in 1860. $10B was the entire GDP
Obviously it is inflation corrected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2017, 12:33 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas
13,433 posts, read 24,210,764 times
Reputation: 24745
I got my first job in 1967. I was a nurse's aide in a convent nursing home in Massachusetts for the princely sum of $1.65 per hour. Part time, I was a kid in school. I think I told them I was a bit older than I actually was to get the job.

Here's what I remember about the economics of those times. My dad worked and easily supported the 4 of us. We had a normal middle class life. We had a home, car, and went on vacation every year plus usually a trip to visit the grandparents in another state. We had pretty much everything we needed and most of what we wanted. Dad usually went on several hunting trips every year with his buddies as well. We all went to the dentist and the doctor at least twice a year. We weren't rich by any means but dad's job paid enough to take care of us quite well. To the best of my knowledge, my parents didn't fight about money and we had no problems paying the bills. My father was not a college graduate. He was able to use the GI Bill for training in accounting after WWII and Korea.

I had a lot of relatives who were poor. Not because they didn't work but because they were trying to support too many kids. Even with some of the wives working as well. Most of the women(aunts) were nurses or teachers. My mom was also a nurse and she wanted to work but my dad was against it. I can actually remember him saying he didn't want people to think he didn't make enough money to support his family...

Working people then were much more secure than they are today. You could pretty much assume that as long as you worked hard, you could retire from your job. You were not constantly afraid of losing your job. And most likely your job had healthcare and a pension included.

Things sure did change and not for the better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2017, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX and Las Vegas, NV
5,080 posts, read 3,775,574 times
Reputation: 10062
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepka View Post
Yes I have to wonder how many of the "Good ole days" types would actually like to go back and live in the conditions that were extant at that time. Smaller houses, no computer, no cellphones, 3 TV stations, no blow dryers () and yet your hair was expected to be perfect. I don't think that women or brown folks would have been too happy in that climate. But hey...childhood was great. LOL. Oh, and the music...
I had a hair dryer in the 60s. But straigtened my hair with a real iron on the ironing board.


But, economically, I was a college freshman in 67 and had part time jobs which were plentiful at minimum wage. Minimum wage was just for students back then, and after a short time a nickel raise was an expectation and given.

By the time I achieved my degree in 71, the economy was more challenging from a job hunting perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2017, 02:09 PM
 
6,822 posts, read 4,412,863 times
Reputation: 11951
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
If you go back to the wage chart, and start at 1860 ($5k), 1.9% annual growth rate would be:

$18k in 1930 (vs $12.5k actual). Wage growth over 66 years is 70% of economic growth.

$43k in 1975 (vs $37k actual). Wage growth over 115 years is 86% of economic growth.

$96k in 2010 (vs $37k actual). Wage growth over 150 years is 39% of economic growth.

The period since 1975 is the anomaly.
OK, let's use those numbers. Let's plug in $5000 in 1860, and $12,500 in 1930. For that to work, the annual growth rate would have to be 1.32%. That's it... just 1.32%. Let's check our work: 5000 * (1 + 1.32/100)^70 =~ 12500.

Now let's take (1 + 1.32/100)^150, to get to 2010. The result? $37,700. What does this mean? It means that the bulge in workers' wages from 1930 through 1975, pretty much cancels the stagnation since 1975... and we're right back on to the trend-line from 1860 to 1930.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top